SHAMSUDEEN Vs. KOTTAKUNNEL TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S.No.170 of 1992 on the file of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha, who is the respondent in I.A.No.702 of 1992, is the appellant. The above suit filed by the respondent herein is to recover Rs.65,414.38 stated to be due in respect of transactions he had with the appellant who issued a cheque which was dishonoured. He filed the above I.A. under O.38 R.1 C.P.C. for arrest of the appellant and another petitioner under O.38 R.5, for attachment of property. The appellant was arrested by the Amin with police help and produced before court. By the order which is challenged in this appeal, he was released 'on executing kaichit and on the basis of the surety bond executed by his brother and on undertaking that he would pay half the amount on 10-6-92".

(2.) According to the appellant, there was no ground for his arrest before judgment, that the court acted without sufficient materials, that he furnished security for his presence in court and executed a kychit which was accepted, that the court was not justified to direct him to deposit half the plaint amount which was in excess of jurisdiction

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent where it is stated that in fact, the appellant had made attempts to transfer his property and also to leave the country, to stultify the decree that may be passed against him, and therefore, the court was justified to pass the impugned order in the particular circumstances of the case. There is nothing illegal about it and there is no scope for interference.